The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by former District Judge Ved Pal Gupta, challenging his compulsory retirement. The disciplinary action was initiated following allegations that Gupta acquired multiple properties through questionable means during his judicial service, which began in 1987.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal ruled that permission granted by the High Court’s administrative wing for property transactions does not shield a government employee from scrutiny regarding the genuineness of their resources.
“As per Employees Conduct Rules, 1965, the government employee is prohibited from acquiring or disposing of any immovable property except with the knowledge of the prescribed authority,” the Bench noted. It added, “At the time of permission, the competent authority only examines it in context of knowledge and not in the context of genuine resources of the employee and its impact.”
Properties Under Scrutiny
At the time of his appointment, Gupta owned only half of a modest residential property in Gohana, Haryana. However, subsequent inquiries revealed that he and his family came into possession of properties in Gurgaon, Faridabad, and Panchkula.
The Court scrutinized a property acquired in 1998 by Gupta’s mother-in-law, Chameli Devi, which was transferred within six months to Gupta’s wife. The inquiry officer flagged this as irregular, stating that Chameli Devi’s income tax records failed to substantiate her ability to purchase the property.
Additionally, the inquiry revealed that while Chameli Devi’s Will bequeathed other properties among her sons and family members, the property in Sushant Lok was exclusively left to Gupta’s wife, raising further questions. “There is no recital that her mother had some special love and affection for her,” the Court remarked.
A property purchased by Gupta’s father in Panchkula also came under scrutiny. The Bench observed, “He was not a man of means,” citing glaring discrepancies in the father’s income tax records and cash declarations. Another property acquired by Gupta’s wife in Panchkula was purchased for a price significantly below its market value, further strengthening the case against the judicial officer.
Court’s Conclusion
Dismissing Gupta’s plea, the Court upheld the disciplinary authority’s findings, concluding that Gupta failed to demonstrate legitimate sources of income for the properties in question. “Keeping in view the foregoing discussion, there is no scope for interference in the opinion formed by the disciplinary authority. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed,” the judgment stated.
The Bench’s decision affirms the importance of transparency and accountability in judicial conduct, emphasizing that actions inconsistent with prescribed rules will not be overlooked.
Case: Ved Pal Gupta vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana and another – Available on LAWFYI.IO
